|
|
|
|
|
| 1.30.2003 - Deep thoughts from an extremely complicated and difficult to understand man |
| Since I have been wasting away into a withered shell of a human being at home, I have had ample time to ponder many of life's more difficult questions. It's the only thing that is saving my sanity, other than trying to get more packs on my turgid abdomen. If you can provide any answers to these questions, email me and you MIGHT win a prize*! Then, tune in every next update for another opportunity to win an all-expenses paid trip to Tahiti*! * lie If con is the opposite of the pro, is congress the opposite of progress? What is the sound of three hands clapping? Do clones have bellybuttons? Does the trees moving make the wind blow? Is it possible to get a Ph.D in philosophy? Does sour cream ever go bad? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? Does Britney Spears still think that people believe she's a virgin? When a cow laughs, does milk squirt out of its nose? What is the airspeed of a swallow? Why is it called football when the foot hardly ever touches the ball? Why is it called soccer when hardly anybody ever socks the ball (or each other)? If a tree falls on a forest ranger and nobody is around, does the forest ranger make a sound? |
| 1.24.2003 - US foreign policy part I: Iraq |
| Way back in the day when Al "Woody" Gore hilariously self-destructed in a flash of ineptitude due to the inability of voters to follow BOLD CLEARLY PRINTED ARROWS during the presidential elections, I breathed a sigh of relief. This sigh of relief was brought about because our next president was a person whose nickname consisted of his middle initial (Dubya), and thus he would be a harmless dolt who would sit around in the Oval Office doing wonderful things such as drooling, signing tax hikes, and seeing how many crayons it would take for him to eat before his burps turned Technicolor. But I was sorely mistaken. As of late, our president has vigorously threatened war on an evil, dictator-led country filled with weapons and oil, that has opposed the United States on every policy in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia. But along the way, he also plans to take out Iraq. The cause for this aggression dates back to 1992, when Saddam Hussein called our president's dad, and I quote, a "nancy boy." Since this remark obviously referred to the hidden affair between George Bush the First and Ronald Reagan's wife, there was nothing else to do but wage terrible war for a total of 4.5 hours, at the end of which Iraq lay a smoldering mess, and the US military suffered 50,000 injuries due to sunburn. But I digress. Seriously, though, President Bush wants to wage war on Iraq. Let us count the reasons for doing so: 1) The complete lack of discovery of any weapons of mass destruction by the UN inspectors, except for a few old unarmed warheads that the soldiers were using as soccer balls. 2) The complete non-endorsement by the entire European Union. This is no big surprise, since the EU are a bunch of weenies anyway. More on them later. However, in order for the United States to export more to Europe than basketball championships, it would be a good idea to have the EU on friendly terms. 3) The complete hatred of America within the Middle East. The entire region is a hotbed of anti-American sentiment, so what better way to teach those infidels a lesson than to give them a good ol' fashioned American WASP spanking? 4) The complete inability to oust Saddam Hussein, short of killing him outright and making Iraq the 51st state (52nd if you count Canada). Iraqi politics is based on a tribal system, with clear rules of succession. Even if Saddam were deposed, another of his tribe - probably with the same ideals - would assume power. 5) The complete lack of any direct link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Hussein is a secular ruler, with little or no ties to the fundamentalist Islam that most terrorism is based on. In fact, Hussein is one of bin Laden's enemies, as he sees Hussein as the instigator that cause the United States to meddle in the first place. These are the five top reasons for fighting Iraq, and I use the term "fighting" loosely in this case. If the world were a hospital and the countries were people, the United States would be the burly male nurse and Iraq would be the leukemia-stricken decrepit bitter psycho child that throws its feces at the burly male nurse. All it takes is a pillow to the face to silence the little troll. Pick on someone your own size, America! |
| 12.8.2002 - Movie Review: Sweet Home Alabama |
| Before we start, I have one thing to say: I am not gay. Okay. Now that that's out of the way, time to get onto the movie. If you haven't noticed, this update is long overdue. So long, in fact, that I've forgotten what the movie was about, besides horribly overblowing and exploiting every southern stereotype that exists. Wow I'm lazy. Now, on to new and more exciting things! |
| 09.17.2002 - How to be a Loser |
| Being a loser is something i've always excelled at. Countless numbers of people have shown their admiration for my loser skills by pointing their fingers and laughing at me, and walking away, trying not to fall over from laughing too hard. Hardly a day goes by where someone doesn't ask me, "Are you still a loser?" Of course they usually rephrase the question so it's not so direct, into forms such as "How's the job search going?" or "Anyone new in your life?" or "Are you still not a winner?" So without further ado, here are my
1) One of the biggest ways to be a loser is not to support yourself. Nothing says "I'm a loser" louder than your parents' checkbook. 2) A strong inclination to do nothing important. Whenever presented with a choice between something and nothing, the loser always gives nothing a shot. For example, making this webpage. 3) Having the opposite sex give you the red light of rejection at every intersection of romance while you're in your automobile of youth travelling down your street of life is a good sign you're a loser. 4) A good loser takes every blow the world gives him in the groin good-naturedly. He can't start caring about his constant and recurring failures. There's a fine line between being a loser and being a depressed homicidal suicidal amphetamine-crazed maniac out for revenge. I think i'm in the first category (for now). 5) Above all, being a loser requires never giving up. After all, the job of a loser is to lose, and you can't lose if you don't try. If you said, "Hey! That's me!" to three or more of these characteristics, chances are that you may be a loser. If that is the case, congratulations! Not many people can aspire to the rank of humanity that you have attained. It's an achievement comparable to watching a circus elephant squish a clown, only without that funny honking noise. |
| 09.12.2002 - Fyodor part 2 |
| "... the most powerful weapon in the subjection of the female heart, a weapon which never fails one. It's the well-known resouce--flattery. Nothing in the world is harder than speaking the truth and nothing easier than flattery. If there's the hundredth part of a false note in speaking the truth, it leads to a discord, and that leads to trouble. But if all, to the last note, is false in flattery, it is just as agreeable, and is heard not without satisfaction. It may be a coarse satisfaction, but still is satisfaction. And however coarse the flattery, at least half will be sure to seem true. That's so for all stages of development and classes of society." |
| 09.02.2002 - My name is not mentioned anywhere on this page |
| This will be remedied shortly |
| 08.31.2002 - Some good advice my good friend Fyodor gave me |
| "God preserve you, my dear boy, from ever asking forgiveness for a fault from a woman you love. From one you love especially, however greatly you may have been in fault. For a woman -- devil only knows what to make of a woman: I know something about them, anyway. But try acknowledging you are in fault to a woman. Say, 'I am sorry, forgive me,' and a shower of reproaches will follow! Nothing will make her forgive you simply and directly, she'll humble you to the dust, bring forward things that have never happened, recall everything, forget nothing, add something of her own, and only then forgive you. And even the best, the best of them do it. She'll scrape up all the scrapings and load them on your head. They are ready to flay you alive, I tell you, every one of them, all these angels without whom we cannot live! I tell you plainly and openly, dear boy, every decent man ought to be under some woman's thumb. That's my conviction -- not conviction, but feeling. A man ought to be magnanimous, and it's no disgrace to a man! No disgrace to a hero, not even a Caesar! But don't ever beg her pardon all the same for anything."
I have yet to ascertain the truthfulness of this statement... |
| 08.29.2002 - Random Flash Game: Take some time and shoot something |
| For those of you insanely bored, this archery game will keep you entertained for about, oh, five minutes.
|
| 08.27.2002 - News Update: People are truly amazing |
| People never cease to amaze me with their common sense. Take into account this report of a fisherman, who after finding a human head in the Atlantic ocean, decided to put it into a bucket and keep on fishing. I suspect he wanted to fry it up for dinner. Quote: "We didn't want to come in right away, so we just put it in a bag in a bucket. It'd been out there awhile. What's a couple of hours?"
I'm just glad there weren't any pictures. |
| 08.22.2002 - Movie Review: Signs |
|
Every once in a long while in the film industry, one movie seems to rise above all others, with its star-filled cast, in-depth character development, breath-taking acting, trend-setting cinematography, awe-inspiring plot narration, and overly-liberal exceptionally-innovative almost-aggravating use of the hyphen. Signs, however, is not such a movie.
Signs is directed by the one-hit wonder, M. Night Shyamalan. It stars Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, some little girl, and one of those annoying Culkin kids. Remember Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone? More specifically, how you wanted to slap Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone? Well, another spawn of that cursed clan is once again prancing about on the big screen. He does, however, stick a fork into a dog, which was kind of cool. Props to him for that. The entire plot of this movie revolves around Graham Hess (played by Gibson), a preacher who loses his faith in religion on account of the vehicular manslaughter of his wife. He wades through the movie accompanied by his younger brother Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix) and his two kids. Since i don't remember the names of the kids, i'll call them "daughter" and "culkin." Anyway, through the appearance of "signs" in his crops that prepare the way for an eventual invasion of an extra-terrestrial force, Graham finally comes to grips with his faith (or lack thereof) and finds closure in his life. An interesting sidenote: The director cast himself into a minor role in the movie. Shyamalan plays Ray Reddy, the person who accidentally killed Graham's wife six months prior. It may be a fun exercise to follow the dialogue and actions he's engaged in throughout the movie. Shyamalan does an excellent job of not letting the movie become another cheap sci-fi flick; instead, he keeps the movie focused on one man's struggle with religion. Earth's struggle with the invading force is relegated to a television and a radio, giving the movie a claustrophobically intimate feeling. We are more concerned with THIS particular family in THIS particular area, rather than the worldwide conflict. There are no flashy battle scenes, no high-tech laser fights. Although the aliens are in a sense the foundation of the movie premise, we hardly see them at all. Instead, Shyamalan prefers to thrill his audience through what can barely be glimpsed: a silhouette, a reflection, a sudden, though slight, movement. I particularly enjoyed the Brazil scene, as an example. However, he relies too heavily on audio cues for the rest of his thrills. These were way too overdramatized. I mean, if there's fifteen seconds of silence during the movie, who doesn't know that there's something bad going down within the next five? There's no need to accent whatever happens with an ear-jarringly loud blast of cacophony. In addition, Gibson's character is the only role where the audience can see any semblance of development, of change. The rest of the entire cast are flat foils, created to serve a specific purpose in the movie. Granted, the movie script doesn't allow much space for any of the characters to develop, so I can't judge it too harshly on this point. But I would have liked to see a little more about Graham's relationship with his brother Merrill, as well as his relationships with his children. The acting of the movie is well-done. All the characters seem comfortable in their roles. Phoenix provides comic relief at the right times, while Gibson shows plenty of believable emotion throughout. Overall, the plot does hold water (pun intended), but in general the story is unbelievable. I came away from the movie thinking, "How stupid can those aliens be?" Suck-meter: 2 out of 5 (the higher the worse) |